Anti Knowledge: Liberalism & the Democratic Party

[WinePusher]

Liberals seem to be obsessed about Israel. They often complain about war crimes committed on the part of the Israelis and people like Noam Chomsky make careers out of criticizing Israel.

Yet, any human rights abuses on the part of the Israeli government pale in comparison to the human rights abuses committed in neighboring Islamic theocracies, where women are forced to wear oppressive and humiliating clothing, where women are stoned for the "crime" of getting an education, where homosexuals are brutally killed and where Christians and other religious minorities are brutally killed.

When these things are pointed out to liberals, they will indignantly go on about Islamaphobia. For example, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have been labeled Islamaphobes for pointing out the reprehensible ideas many Muslims promote.

Similarly, Sam Harris has pointed out in this [youtube][/youtube] that when it comes to radical Muslims killing cartoonists, liberals actually blame the cartoonists for offending and "triggering" the Muslim community.

Sam Harris asks a succinct question that has yet to be answered: how morally confused do you have to be to blame the cartoonists who have been butchered by theocratic Muslim "maniacs" rather than blaming the theocratic Muslim "maniacs."

I would like to expand on this important question Sam Harris is asking, how morally confused does one have to be to spend all their time criticizing Israel rather than criticizing the numerous Islamic theocracies in the Middle East that kill women, gays and religious minorities? How morally confused does one have to be to call Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins Islamaphobes for pointing out that there are many Muslims who justify these barbaric practices using the Koran and the Hadith?

Any thoughts?

[KenRU]

Liberals seem to be obsessed about Israel. They often complain about war crimes committed on the part of the Israelis and people like Noam Chomsky make careers out of criticizing Israel.

Yet, any human rights abuses on the part of the Israeli government pale in comparison to the human rights abuses committed in neighboring Islamic theocracies, where women are forced to wear oppressive and humiliating clothing, where women are stoned for the "crime" of getting an education, where homosexuals are brutally killed and where Christians and other religious minorities are brutally killed.

When these things are pointed out to liberals, they will indignantly go on about Islamaphobia. For example, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have been labeled Islamaphobes for pointing out the reprehensible ideas many Muslims promote.

Similarly, Sam Harris has pointed out in this [youtube][/youtube] that when it comes to radical Muslims killing cartoonists, liberals actually blame the cartoonists for offending and "triggering" the Muslim community.

Sam Harris asks a succinct question that has yet to be answered: how morally confused do you have to be to blame the cartoonists who have been butchered by theocratic Muslim "maniacs" rather than blaming the theocratic Muslim "maniacs."

I would like to expand on this important question Sam Harris is asking, how morally confused does one have to be to spend all their time criticizing Israel rather than criticizing the numerous Islamic theocracies in the Middle East that kill women, gays and religious minorities? How morally confused does one have to be to call Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins Islamaphobes for pointing out that there are many Muslims who justify these barbaric practices using the Koran and the Hadith?

Any thoughts?

This baffles me as well. Suddenly up becomes down and right becomes wrong, all for what? The sake of being pc? I don't get it.

I recognize that neither side is blameless, but when one side advocates bombs on school busses or that cartoonists need to die, well, then that just tells me a whole lot about your character as a human being.

How morally confused does one have to be to think violence, murder and bloodlust is the answer to ppl who disagree with your religion?

-all the best

[Hamsaka]

This is very bizarre to me too. Harris and Dawkins are hard-core lefties, for the most part!

I think this 'dilemma' between these atheists and their native political party is an indication of who is thinking for themselves and who 'thinks' with their political views instead of their brain.

Harris especially has been blacklisted by 'his own' for not getting onboard with the Israeli-Palestine conflict issues, because he thoroughly lambasts both Israelis and Palestinians, the latter of whom are 'protected' by the political left.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

For me it's a bit like comparing convicted violent felons. Sure some are way worse than others but in the end your still just looking at convicted violent felons. As for liberals who ignore other Arab nations while condemning Isreal, it goes back to group think and group polarization. When you have two groups cohabitating the same social/political network they will tend to polarize on issues one group becomes overtly in favor of. In this case you have two mirrors 1. The Christian conservative and 2. The overly PC liberal.

The Christian conservative laser focuses on Arab nations and completely ignores issues with Isreal. The overly PC liberal laser focuses on Isreal and ignores Arab nations.

The fact that these two paradigms exist is evidence that neither group is being objective.

[bluethread]

The fact that these two paradigms exist is evidence that neither group is being objective.

I'm not going to accuse you of this personally. However, this kind of statement is also used as a dodge. When the right is convinced one of their own is wrong, they generally say so and join in the prosecution. However, when the left is convinced one of their own is wrong, they say, "Well, everybody does it.", and the offender get's a pass. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton and now Hillary are cases in point.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

I'm not so sure, earlier in the thread an example was posted of Sam Harris being ousted by hardcore leftists for not adhering to their views. While you may be expressing that conservatives are more likely to admit when one of their proponents is "wrong" than liberals, you may be right. But consider that even these liberals are convinced that Sam Harris is "wrong", so they effectively have similar ethics regarding 'political heretics'.

[Strider324]

Not sure who these liberals are that ignore middle eastern atrocities, as I have never met or seen one. Sounds a bit like a Strawman.

I do know that Israel and its supporters are the first to demonize Islam while ignoring its own history of terrorism as well as its longstanding and current practice of treating Palestinians like cockroaches, while reminding everyone every chance they get that they are just poor, pitiable holocaust survivors that somehow earned the 'right' to displace millions from their homes based on bogus religious 'manifest destiny'. That appears to be the real reason all the right wing nuts - who are among the most anti-Semitic people I have ever met - find themselves so in love with Israel today.

After all, ya need Israel to reach the holy grail of Apocalypse, right?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

Typically it can be used that way, which is why I was careful to be very specific with what I was describing. Being liberal or conservative doesn't suddenly make people different psychogically we generally behave the same way and follow similar patterns. So when we look at group behaviors when there is recipricole patterns it is a tell tell sign of group polarization. That is to say ideologically speaking the harder one group pushes an ideology the more it reinforces the opposing groups ideology. Most "hot button issues" exhibit this behavior pattern surrounding them.

So when we see liberal's being hyper critical of Israel while failing to account for other negative regional powers like lets say Saudi Arabia. The group has become so polarized that it cannot address the other issues. These people should generally not be trusted on the issues they are polarized on.

[WinePusher]

For me it's a bit like comparing convicted violent felons. Sure some are way worse than others but in the end your still just looking at convicted violent felons.

Sorry, but are you incapable of recognizing the difference between occupying land that another group claims, and throwing gay people off roofs/throwing acid in the face of women/stoning women/killing minorities, etc, etc, etc? To say that Israel and nations like Iran are both 'convicted felons' pretty much reinforces Sam Harris' point concerning the moral confusion that many liberals suffer from.

You see, there are plenty of reasons to speak out against many of the Islamic nations in the Middle East. These Islamic nations commit real human rights violations, such as killing religious minorities and women. Now, we have one Jewish nation in the Middle East that in no way, shape or form persecutes religious minorities or engages in any of the other unspeakable atrocities that Islamic states like Iran do. Yet, liberals rail against Israel day and night and excuse/apologize for radical Islam and the nations who ascribe to this ideology.

Sam Harris accurately labels this as a 'moral confusion' but we still don't know where this moral confusion comes from. Why is it that American liberals and members of the Democratic party espouse these regressive, morally inconsistent views?

As for liberals who ignore other Arab nations while condemning Isreal, it goes back to group think and group polarization. When you have two groups cohabitating the same social/political network they will tend to polarize on issues one group becomes overtly in favor of. In this case you have two mirrors 1. The Christian conservative and 2. The overly PC liberal.

I have no clue what any of this is supposed to mean.

The Christian conservative laser focuses on Arab nations and completely ignores issues with Isreal. The overly PC liberal laser focuses on Isreal and ignores Arab nations.

Probably because one of them kills minorities while the other doesn't. I think your post pretty much sums up the problem. Apparently some are unable to see the difference between a nation that kills minorities and a nation that doesn't. Apparently these people think that both nations are guilty of 'felonies' and that both nations deserve equal criticism, even though one of them kills minorities and the other doesn't.

The fact that these two paradigms exist is evidence that neither group is being objective.

Conservatives are being completely objective and consistent on this issue. You see Daniel, it would help immensely if you would realize that radical Islamic nations kill women, stone women, kill gays, and kill religious minorities. Israel doesn't do this. Thus, it is only natural for reasonable people to focus on the many Islamic nations that kill innocent people.

And btw, did you watch the video with Sam Harris and Majid Nawaz? They very eloquently destroy your untenable position on Islam and Israel.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 9 by WinePusher]

Conservatives are being completely objective and consistent on this issue. You see Daniel, it would help immensely if you would realize that radical Islamic nations kill women, stone women, kill gays, and kill religious minorities. Israel doesn't do this

These are two separate issues though. I rightly pointed out Saudi Arabia as being an example of what you are getting at in terms of human rights issues. That being said why should we compare the two in the first place? Have I suggested replacing Israel with an Islamic theocracy.

Can I not be critical of policy positions of Israel? If you are suggesing no one can criticise Israel your not being objective.